Planted questions for Hillary

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

LOL!

This is almost as ingenuous as Nor Cal's silly implication that "what's laughable is that politicians still do this" line. Yea, Nor Cal, that's why you posted what you did.

Funny stuff.

What's really laughable is Hillary flat out lied about the whole issue, saying she knew nothing about the planted questions.
You're right. The reason I posted it is because Hillary Clinton is of the devil. I will do anything in my power to ensure she is never elected President. Anyone with any sense of decency and morals should be doing the same.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I will say that what she did does bother me. I am sick and tired of canned questions and canned answers. I want politicians to answer to the people, I don't want more of the same of what we have been experiencing for the past 7 years. I know this goes on in many campaigns, but I find it disappointing every time I hear about it nonetheless. The fact that others do it is no excuse for Hillary to also do it.

There is no evidence that she knew about the plant personally, but if she didn't know personally, I would hope she would fire whoever did it.

Why do you assume anything but the worst from a seasoned politician?

Would she know all details? Of course not, it's called "plausible deniability". But she knows the routine, she of all people.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why would you assume the worst?

Because Hillary isn't stupid.

She knows what's going on in her own campaign.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why would you assume the worst?

First, it's the nature of high level politicians. They are shrewd, intelligent, conniving, manipulative, amoral, desperate, risk taking, self-absorbed, back-stabbing pieces of shit.

Second, if one assumes the worst, once in a while one will be happily surprised but most of the time one will find the worst in politicians. They just are the lowliest forms of humanoids walking the planet. And as long as they do my bidding, I'm okay with that. Once they do the bidding of another, they are beyond contempt.

But seriously, it's what politicians do to survive. All who believe these guys and gals operate under the same system of principles that non-politicians do, need to buy some wonderful swamp land in Vietnam. They have a different battle plan and assume others accept it, until how they truly operate comes to light. You're a smart guy, stop being so naive, as you're no longer young.

Bush and Clinton are truly of the same cloth, just different shades. Anything they can get away with, they will.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I can't even begin to describe how low the agenda of planting questions has to be on the campaign issue chart. If Hillary is an effective leader, she has no reason at all to be buried in small details.

Not sure how "being aware that her staffers are planting questions" equals being "buried in small details."

It would take about three seconds of her time to become aware of this/get it started.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Out of curiousity, how is it any different to ascribe characteristics to an entire group of people based on their profession as opposed to ascribing characteristics to an entire group of people based on any other quality, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.? Do you even realize the absurd, illogical steps you have to pass through to take such an approach?

You are letting your emotions get the better of you.

If I assess what it takes to be great sprinter by profession, am I making judgments which are absurd.

It takes the ability to run fast over a given distant. This means enough quick twitch muscle fiber properly trained. Many, many sprinters are very hyper and possess other characteristics.

I'm very familiar with what characteristics are required to be successful in the political process, and being rigid, tied to a moral code is an impediment. One must either see every shade of gray or jettison the moral code altogether to be successful and to navigate it.

It's akin to assessing what is important to be a great sprinter.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It would take about three seconds of her time to become aware of any small detail of her campaign (which is why, by definition, they are "small details"). That doesn't mean she has taken the time, and it doesn't mean she should. Your statement could apply to millions of small details, each of which would take 3 seconds to understand, but in the aggregate, learning about all of those small details would take years and would be a total waste of time.

Well yeah... the detail that Hillary's campaign SUVs are now using Goodyear tires probably goes unnoticed by Mrs. Clinton. But I'd view question planting as a larger-than-average small detail. One that takes almost no time to become aware of, but has quite a bit of importance.

I can guarantee you she will be asking about this detail in the future, now that it has hurt her (making it now a big issue worthy of her attention).

I don't know... most of the people in this thread seemed to indicate it wasn't a big deal at all. Is the average American more naive? But I suppose if Hillary was sincerely concerned about preventing this from happening again, she'd take a lot of time to do so.

There is no possible way for you to know if she knew about staffers planting questions prior to recent events other than some external evidence (which hasn't appeared anywhere).

Oh, I agree completely. It's just that we've known Hillary for 14 years now and I think we have a pretty good handle on what kind of person she is. She's highly efficient and very smart. I doubt much of anything gets past her.

But proof? You're right, I have none.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Some of our greatest leaders would beg to differ.

I think you have a warped sense of what it meanst to be "successful" as a politician. Would you argue to be a successful lawyer you have to be a miserable lying cheat unconcerned with justice?

Most of the attorneys I know are reasonably honest, and whether another is honest or dishonest won't affect my honesty, but it will affect how I deal with the dishonest ones. They just work harder but some of what "honest" lawyers do appears dishonest to nonlawyers. And maybe in the grand scheme of things, we are generally dishonest while honest under the rules of our profession.

However, there are competitive lawyers who are extremely dishonest and they usually do not get caught.

I'm not familiar with "Great Leader" except Kim Il Song of North Korea and I don't find him to be so great. I'll that appellation toward any human being with a grain of salt. I'd replace the term of "great" with "successful".

And I really don't care what the rhetoric of any person is, who is speaking for public consumption. I don't care if it's GBH, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Bo Jackson, or Sir Charles, public consumption rhetoric is not truth, but meant to manipulate. Look behind the bullshit.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Well yeah... the detail that Hillary's campaign SUVs are now using Goodyear tires probably goes unnoticed by Mrs. Clinton. But I'd view question planting as a larger-than-average small detail. One that takes almost no time to become aware of, but has quite a bit of importance.

I don't know... most of the people in this thread seemed to indicate it wasn't a big deal at all. Is the average American more naive? But I suppose if Hillary was sincerely concerned about preventing this from happening again, she'd take a lot of time to do so.


Oh, I agree completely. It's just that we've known Hillary for 14 years now and I think we have a pretty good handle on what kind of person she is. She's highly efficient and very smart. I doubt much of anything gets past her.

But proof? You're right, I have none.

I don't care what her inner wishes are; I'm not looking to elect the next Sainted Catholic.

I'm looking for somebody to advance my issues.

Right now, none of them do that very well, but she does it worst of all.

For anybody to look at a politician and think, "Gee that guy or gal is a nice person and really understands, I want that person because that person is a good person and fair."

What a crock.

I want that politician because he or she is smart and will vote how I want him or her to vote. I don't want to be led, but for him or her to follow what I want.

[DJRoss]

She like any politician running for major office is continually debriefed regarding the current stop. They have already had their teams out scouring the venue for any possible detail that could be portrayed as a threat to a smooth presentation. The questions are salted in to ensure that Hillary can touch upon each of her talking points, and have it appear improvisational. This is a tactic that is commonly used by many politicians. Not all, but many. I might add that you find this type of strategy more often used by Senators vs Governors since Senators by sheer nature of their assignment are not often brought before the public to take stands on issues as Governors are.

Typical differentiation would be the Ask my Anything campaign that Mitt has run and upon several occasions he has had to deal with aggressive individuals who either have a bonafide concern about his political stances and are voicing their objections, or they are are there to cause problems as supporters of political opponents.

The Hillary roadshow has been rather saccharine in nature with literally no surprises. It is canned as canned ham, and to believe that She is clueless as to the set up is naive at best.